Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/322131761
CITATIONS READS
0 1,515
1 author:
Annum Khaliq
Hasselt University
9 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Annum Khaliq on 10 November 2018.
Master's thesis
New concepts for parking in residential areas
Supervisor :
Prof. dr. Gerhard WETS
Annum Khaliq
Thesis presented in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Transportation Sciences
Master's thesis
New concepts for parking in residential areas
Supervisor :
Prof. dr. Gerhard WETS
Annum Khaliq
Thesis presented in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Transportation Sciences
PREFACE
As parking issues are creating concerns for urban planners all over the world. Being an urban planner
and a transport scientist I was looking forward to search about new ideas for parking being used in
other countries, having special significance to residential areas. This is the reason I found this topic
very interesting for my Master thesis.
Commercial areas have already grabbed the attention of city planners and researchers to devise
policies and solutions to reduce the parking problems prevailing in the city center. These parking
issues are not just confined to the commercial areas but have progressed to residential areas as well.
Basically, residential areas are the points where vehicles are parked for longer durations so the
parking problems would definitely be more visible in such areas. Due to significant increase in car
ownership rates during last decades, the need to house the vehicles has also increased. A lot of
parking search traffic can be seen in areas with different land uses that is creating nuisance for overall
traffic flow. In case of residential areas people want their car to be in front of their doors that makes
the residential areas aesthetically look unpleasant and affects the livability and safety of the area. Also
the parking of cars in front of the resident’s house creates obstruction for other road users. All these
issues urge for new parking concepts to be introduced and implemented in residential areas. Many
developed countries in the world have introduced new concepts of parking to mitigate the parking
issues.
At University of Hasselt, the course of Masters in transportation sciences is very diverse. It covers
almost all dimensions of transportation planning and engineering. A transportation scientist should see
a transport related problem from every aspect and parking issues are a dilemma of automobile age. In
this piece of research, the residential parking issues and the drawbacks of conventional parking
techniques are highlighted and new concepts of parking used in developed countries are identified.
The applicability and acceptability of these identified concepts in the study area is measured using
observations and focus group. A focus group discussion with the concerned authority of the study area
revealed the views of parking experts regarding the benefits and feasibility of adopting the identified
concepts regarding the study area. This research aims to direct the policy makers while planning to
devise solutions of parking problems in residential area. It does not provide any directions for the
implementation of a certain parking concept in the study area. This study would be useful to find out
the importance of focus group while collecting data for qualitative research and to gain insights of
decision makers regarding the introduction of a new idea or program.
At the end, I would like to acknowledge my supervisors, experts from the municipality who have
participated in the focus group and my family, who have helped me to complete this research.
Table of Contents
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ I
CHAPTER NO. 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………… .…..1
1.1. Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Objectives of the Study .................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Scope of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Justification of Research .................................................................................................................. 3
1.5. Research Questions .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.6. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 3
1.7. Structure of Thesis ........................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER NO. 2 RESIDENTIAL PARKING OVERVIEW………………………………………………………….5
2.1. Parking in Residential Areas ............................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1. On-Street Parking...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Off-Street Parking ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2. Draw backs of Conventional Parking Techniques ........................................................................... 7
2.2.1. Issues of Off-Street Parking ...................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2. Issues of On-Street Parking....................................................................................................... 8
2.3. Parking Problems in Residential Areas ............................................................................................ 9
2.3.1. Problems Associated to Parking Demand, Supply and Utilization ......................................... 10
2.3.2. Problems Associated to Resident’s Choice ............................................................................. 11
2.4. Parking Solutions ........................................................................................................................... 12
2.4.1 Discourage Car Ownership ...................................................................................................... 12
2.4.2. Optimize the Use of Existing Parking Space .......................................................................... 13
2.4.3. Create More Parking Space..................................................................................................... 14
2.5. The Future of Residential Parking ................................................................................................. 14
2.5.1. Pay per Use for Residential Parking ....................................................................................... 14
2.5.2. New Residential areas ............................................................................................................. 15
2.6. Innovative Ways of Parking Utilization ......................................................................................... 15
2.6.1. In-Lieu Parking Fees ............................................................................................................... 16
2.6.2. Shared Parking ........................................................................................................................ 16
2.6.3. Centralized Parking ................................................................................................................. 17
2.6.4. Parking Freezes ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.5. Demand Reduction .................................................................................................................. 17
2.6.6. Smart Parking.......................................................................................................................... 18
2.6.7. Private car parks .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.7. Innovation Parking Concepts ......................................................................................................... 19
2.7.1. Automated Parking Systems ................................................................................................... 19
2.7.2. Semi-Automated Parking System ........................................................................................... 19
2.7.3. Working .................................................................................................................................. 20
2.7.4. History..................................................................................................................................... 20
2.8. Advantages of Automated Parking over Conventional Parking facilities...................................... 20
2.9. Case Studies ................................................................................................................................... 22
2.9.1. Automated Parking in Manhattan ........................................................................................... 22
2.9.2. Automated Parking in Munich ................................................................................................ 22
2.9.3. Automated Parking in Toronto ............................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER NO. 3 RESEARCH APPROCH……………………..………………………………………………………….25
3.1. Topic Selection .............................................................................................................................. 25
3.2. Problem Identification.................................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Literature Search ............................................................................................................................ 25
3.4. Defining Research Approach ......................................................................................................... 26
3.4.1. Identification of Study area ..................................................................................................... 26
3.4.2. Obtaining Maps & Performing Preliminary Survey of Area .................................................. 26
3.4.3. Setting up Observation Plan .................................................................................................... 26
3.4.4. Preparing Focus Group Questionnaire .................................................................................... 27
3.4.5. Conducting Focus Group ........................................................................................................ 27
3.4.6. Analysis & Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Conclusions & Recommendations ................................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER NO. 4 AREA PROFILE & FOCUS GROUP……………………………………………………………...28
4.1. Profile of Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.2. Data Collection .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.2.1. Observation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.2. Focus Group ............................................................................................................................ 30
4.2.3. Advantages & Disadvantages of a Focus Group..................................................................... 31
CHAPTER NO. 5 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS……………..……………………………………………………………….32
5.1. Existing Condition of Parking in Study Area ................................................................................ 33
5.2. Findings from Observations ........................................................................................................... 33
5.3. Focus Group Session...................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.1. Focus Group Questionnaire Preparation ................................................................................. 35
5.3.2. Location & Time ..................................................................................................................... 35
5.3.3. Composition of Focus group ................................................................................................... 35
5.4. Analysis.......................................................................................................................................... 35
5.5. Findings from Focus Group ........................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER NO. 6 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………… ………....44
6.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 42
6.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 44
References ............................................................................................................................................. 45
Annex I: Parking Problems and Financial Costs for Parking Facilities ............................................ 50
Annex II: Additional Information on Focus Group .......................................................................... 52
Annex III: Analysis Tables ............................................................................................................... 57
Annex IV: Observation Form, Maps, Focus Group Questionnaire & Presentation .......................... 61
List of Tables
Table 1: Construction Cost Comparisons between Conventional Ramp Garages and Automated Garages ......... 21
Table 2: Ranking of Concepts .............................................................................................................................. 41
Table 3: Different perspectives for viewing parking problems (Litman, 2006) ................................................... 50
Table 4: Typical Off-Street Parking Requirements (ITE, 1999)........................................................................... 50
Table 5: Typical Parking Construction Costs (PT, May 2000, p. 28) ................................................................... 51
Table 6: Typical Parking Facility Financial Costs ................................................................................................ 51
Table 7: Typical Parking Facility Financial Costs (Litman, 2006) ....................................................................... 51
Table 8: Analysis of Matrix .................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 9: Observation Table .................................................................................................................................. 61
List of Figures
List of Photos
List of Graphs
SUMMARY
This report is about parking in residential areas. The purpose of writing this report is to have a
thorough insight on various parking concepts, systems and techniques used to regulate residential
parking. The prime focus was to study in detail the types of parking techniques and systems, when,
where and how these can be applied and to check the applicability and acceptance of these parking
techniques using the focus group. The study has identified the existing concepts used for parking in
residential areas. The issues and drawbacks of the conventional parking methods, solutions to various
parking problems and better ways to manage the existing parking methods have also been listed along
with their benefits. The study highlights the innovative concepts which are flourishing nowadays that
can be modified and applied to the study area (Runkst) as a solution to its parking issues. The cities
where these systems have been implemented successfully are also discussed. Moreover, the report
also discusses the significance of focus group in collecting data for qualitative research.
First chapter describes the problem statement, objectives, scope, justification, methodology of
research and structure of the report. Second chapter provides an overview of literature in the context
of residential parking. These include on-street and off-street parking, sub types of on-street and off-
street are also highlighted. Explaining these methods were necessary to have a clear view about the
residential parking techniques and reflect on the inconveniences these methods are bringing in the
overall urban environment. Parking regulations that are used by the local authorities to regulate
residential parking are also mentioned. The draw backs of conventional parking methods (on-street,
off-street), different perspectives of residential parking issues and their solutions described in the
scientific literature are also explained. Keeping in view the literature, some innovative parking
utilization techniques (in-lieu fees, shared parking, centralized parking, smart parking, demand
reduction, parking freezes, private car parks) and systems (automated, semi-automated parking
systems) are also discussed which are being adopted by most of the developed cities (Manhattan,
Munich & Toronto) to overcome parking related issues. The innovative parking systems and their
potential benefits over conventional parking are also highlighted along with their successful
implementation (case studies).
Third chapter describes the research methodology. It starts from topic selection, finding out
background information in order to identify the true nature of problem and to define the focus of
research regarding this problem. The literature studied, focused mainly on characteristics of
residential parking and the ways in which it is done, draw backs of conventional parking techniques,
better ways of parking utilization, innovative concepts of parking and their potential benefits over
conventional parking. Data collection process, analysis and conclusions are also discussed in detail.
Fourth chapter briefly discusses the profile of the study area and the methodology adopted for data
collection. The qualitative data collection method of focus group along with its advantages &
limitations are highlighted in this chapter.
Fifth chapter discusses the analysis & findings of observations and focus group session. This existing
condition of parking was analyzed using observation technique. It further elaborates the way how the
focus group was conducted in collaboration of municipality of Hasselt, to identify the best parking
concept that can be applied in the selected study area. The detailed procedure of observations, focus
group session, its analysis and findings are also highlighted in this chapter.
The last chapter discusses the conclusions that have been deduced from a detailed study of literature
and analysis of observation forms & focus group. It is concluded that the car ownership rate is
growing with the population so the places to reside these vehicles also need to be increased. It is a
challenge for the local authorities to provide spaces and manage the demand efficiently without
damaging the environment and aesthetics of urban fabric. The issues with residential parking are not
just limited to demand and supply of parking but these also raise the concerns regarding proper
II
utilization of the existing parking facilities. The existing facilities can only be utilized by making
efficient parking policies and their enforcement. Parking regulations such as fines or penalties for
noncompliance of parking rules can help solving problems such as illegal parking, obstructive
driveways or leaving abandoned vehicles on road. On-street parking, is always preferred by the
residents and authorities because it is close and cheap but on the other hand it is aesthetically
unpleasant to see lot of cars parked on the road. Off-street parking facilities are efficient but these
raise concerns such as underutilization because very less residents are willing to pay for them or to
park their cars at a distance. The efficiency and effectiveness of these conventional parking methods
can be enhanced greatly by using the innovative parking concepts such as shared parking, centralized
parking and smart parking. Some of these concepts also provide strategies for reducing car use such as
demand reduction and parking freezes. All these concepts are helpful not only for the residents but
also for the authorities because no or very less additional cost is incurred in applying these strategies.
Furthermore, automated driving systems are technically very advanced and can be used as the most
efficient car parking concepts. Although these systems are expensive but have very successfully
solved all the issues regarding parking. The features of automated systems such as less fuel usage,
sustainable designs, reduced space, lighting, heating and ventilation requirements have grasped the
eyes of investors. The increased acceptance of such system is creating innovation in performing
parking management efficiently. Moreover, the focus group session elaborated that the residents and
the parking experts at the municipality of Hasselt need a combination of the centralized parking,
shared parking and private car parks as a solution to parking issues that are being faced by the
residents in Runkst. Also the participants of the focus group were agree that the actual parking
problem in Runkst is less availability of free parking space on street. Residential parking problems
have various perspectives and dimensions, so it is recommended that a combination of parking
management strategies or innovative parking systems should be implemented, depending on the level
of acceptance, affordability and ease of usage by the community. As in case of study area (Runkst) a
combination of centralized parking, shared parking and private car parks would be accepted by the
community due to the high acceptance, financial feasibility, integration with current policy and ease
of usage of these concepts.
Author: Annum Khaliq 1
CHAPTER NO. 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the problem statement that leads to the actual problem situation. Furthermore
the objectives, scope, justification, methodology of research and structure of thesis are also discussed
in the later sections of this chapter.
either parallel to the curb or at an angle, affects safety. In smaller communities, higher percentages of
local and collector street crashes involve curb parking. One study in a community of 65,000
population found that 43% of all local and collector street crashes involved on-street parking (Box,
1968). In the same city, annual frequencies of 14 parking crashes per mile were found on major
streets, but only 1.8 parking crashes per mile on local and collector streets (Box, 1966).
Another related study reported that parking-related midblock crashes accounted for 49% of all crashes
along major streets, 68% along collector streets, and 72% along local streets (Humphreys J.B. et al,
1979). On-street parking is also a cause of noise pollution, air pollution and visual intrusion. The
increasing parking pressure also affects other aspects of livability in neighborhoods. Due to high
parking pressure, the residential street loses its function as a play space for children and green areas
are affected by illegally parked cars. Furthermore, a profusion of parked cars reduces visibility and
leads to parking search traffic. This affects traffic safety and increases traffic-induced air and noise
pollution. It can be generally stated that on-street parking decreases roadway capacity, impedes traffic
flow and increases crash potential. For these reasons, it is desirable to avoid on-street parking.
With the growing rate of car ownership the need for the availability of space has also increased, the
local authorities’ do not have any power to limit the number of vehicles owned by residents and also
the property's frontage looks like a car sales forecourt, and is out of character with the residential area.
The number of cars will continue to grow in the future. The extent of this growth highly depends on
the population growth and economic developments (Coevering & Snellen, 2008). Conventional
parking techniques in residential areas would not stay as effective in future so there is a need to
provide more options of parking for residents and define a proper system of parking in residential
areas, thus finding out some concepts other than already available in order to meet the future parking
needs.
The purpose of the research is to explore some innovative residential parking ideas which are being
adopted in other countries and see which of those solutions can fit in Belgian context. As the aim of
parking management is not only the provision of parking spaces but also to check the validity of that
solution in the context of area where it is going to be applied. Thus the research is to make an
inventory of parking solutions in the residential areas by identifying the issues which are being faced
by the residents and local authorities and to justify the solution with some innovative ideas.
1.6. Methodology
Topic Selection
The steps taken to complete the report are described below:
Topic selection
Problem Identification
The first task was to select the topic for conducting research. The
motivation behind selecting this topic was to explore innovative
parking techniques that can be used to address the parking Literature Search
problems arising in the residential areas.
Literature Search
Analysis of Focus Group
The next task was to search for scientific literature. The literature
search was carried out to review the work done by different
authors with respect to residential parking. The review was
Conclusions
mainly done with the help of desk research in order to generate
different ideas and to elaborate the topic from diverse Figure 1: Research Methodology
viewpoints.
CHAPTER NO. 2
RESIDENTIAL PARKING OVERVIEW
This chapter discusses the literature in the context of residential parking, it includes different methods
in which residential parking is being done nowadays. These include on-street and off-street parking,
furthermore sub types of on-street and off-street are also highlighted. Explaining these methods were
necessary to have a clear view about the residential parking techniques and reflect on the
inconveniences these methods are bringing in the overall urban environment. Parking regulations are
also mentioned that are used by the local authorities to maintain residential parking.
The draw backs of conventional parking methods (on-street, off-street) along with various parking
issues and their solutions, described in the scientific literature are also explained. Keeping in view the
literature some innovative parking techniques for better utilization of existing parking facilities such
as (in-lieu fees, shared parking, centralized parking, smart parking, private car parks) and systems
(automated, semi-automated parking systems) are also discussed which are being adopted by most of
the developed cities (Manhattan, Munich & Toronto) to overcome parking related issues. The
innovative parking systems and their potential benefits are also highlighted in the end using the
project information of various parking systems developers.
(prices may vary, depending on location). Permit usually specifies the name of that street. Only one
permit is issued to any individual car owner and one household can only have four permits. For a
building divided into more than one unit of accommodation, one parking permit per unit is entitle
(Citizen Information board Ireland, 2013).
Disc parking operates outside the central zone and in some suburban areas of cities. Many urban areas
are divided into zones for traffic management purposes. The central zone contains town center where
the demand for parking is highest and the parking fees are most expensive. Information signs are
erected in areas where disc parking is in operation, giving details about the hours of operation of the
scheme, the maximum parking time and the parking fees. Pay and display parking operates with a
single solar powered meter serving about 20 spaces. There are signs in pay and display parking areas
giving details of the hours that scheme operates and the maximum duration for parking. Prices range
per hour, depending on area, but in general fees range from 80 cent to €2.90 per hour. Dublin City
Council have a parking tag scheme that allows citizens pay for parking using their mobile (Citizen
Information board Ireland, 2013).
Private car parks are not regulated by the government. These are privately owned and revenue earned
from parking in these car parks goes directly to the owners and not to local authority. The prices
charged in private car parks vary from place to place, ranging from about 80 cent to €2.50 per hour.
Prices are determined by the car park owner. Vehicle clamping in public places is in place in some
cities. Services are operated in those cities by private companies on behalf of the local authority.
Local authorities have power to tow away vehicles that have been abandoned or illegally parked on a
public road or in a local authority car park. Vehicles are towed to a car pound and a significant fee (up
to 160 euro) may be charged for their release. Most local authority web sites have details of parking
restrictions and the type of pay parking in operation in the area. Any contravention of local authority
parking bye laws carries a fixed-charge fine. Details of where parking fine can be paid are written on
parking ticket. A clamped vehicle, can be fined ranging from €25 to €90, depending on the local
authority or private company involved (Citizen Information board Ireland, 2013).
An oversupply of off-street parking leads to underutilizing in urban areas that are primarily walkable
and transit oriented in nature. This oversupply of parking consumes more space and creates dead
zones that disperse amenities and destinations, thus making the area difficult to walk through. Most
importantly, free parking adds more cars to the street, compromising the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists. As the local governments usually need to provide sufficient space for parking, they have
generally shown a little interest in parking design or aesthetics. This causes a significant damage to
most of neighborhood vistas because parking now fills a significant proportion of the area. As Donald
Shoup points out, “we not only pay for off-street parking, but we also have to look at it”. Most off-
street parking results in blank walls or empty spaces, disrupting the pedestrian realm (Shoup, 1997).
A study from city of Portland based on the impacts of parking requirements on housing affordability,
uses a hypothetical development and considers a number of different scenarios for providing parking
to the building. Results show that there are trade-offs involved, as the method of providing parking
spaces not only increases the cost, but also limits the ability of a building to fully utilize a site. For
example, providing parking via an off-street surface lot is rather cheap to build, but has a high
opportunity cost – that land used for parking cannot also be used for housing. The study keeps the
land area and the zoning envelope constant: that is, the off-street parking must be provided on-site,
and the variance for extra building height cannot be obtained. The trade-offs for this hypothetical
development, are between cost (the rent charged to get a return on investment) and in utilization of the
site (Block, 2012).
Increasingly regarded as one of the great planning disasters, off-street parking requirements uncovers
the reason behind using a motor vehicle to make almost 90 percent of all trips in America. Because
free parking spaces serve as a “cheap, convenient, direct, sedentary connection to most points in the
city” and lead to a diminished street life. These spaces also provide an impetus for large-scale sprawl
in most areas (Shoup, 1997).
Traffic capacity (number of vehicles moving along a section of roadway) is lost due to parking along
a street. Parking, backing, stopping, or standing vehicles during a parking maneuver physically
restricts other traffic movements. The presence of vehicle in the street, opening doors between cars
also interfere with efficient traffic movement or pedestrians walking (Parking forum, 2004).
In the city of New York, local governments’ minimum street-width standards may force developers to
oversupply, and residents to pay excessively for on-street parking in residential neighborhoods. Such
oversupply is often presumed to encourage car ownership and reduce housing affordability, although
less evidence exists in this regard. Free residential street parking increases private car ownership by
nearly 9%; that is, the availability of free street parking explains 1 out of 11 cars owned by
households with off-street parking (Guo, 2013).
2006). The second concern highlights the availability of parking spaces in residential areas. The
number of parking spaces is not increasing and many existing parking spaces are removed in favor of
other land uses such as buildings or bus stops. This case is similar for private areas where parking
space is utilized for an extension of dwelling. The third concern uncovers the spill-over demand for
parking from other areas where restricted parking policies have been introduced such as central
business and shopping areas. The intensity of parking problems strongly depends on the type and
location of the area (Coevering & Snellen, 2008).
In Europe, problems tend to be most intense in pre-war neighborhoods where in most cases planners
did not take into account the presence of cars. Parking issues in newer neighborhoods is mainly
caused by an increase in car ownership rates. (Marsden, 2006) mentioned an increase of 12 million
cars by 2030 in the UK. Approximately a quarter of these cars have to be parked on-street. Cities
already face several parking problems in residential areas such as high occupancy rates, long walking
distances between parking and dwellings, and vandalism at parking facilities. The increase of parking
problems in residential areas causes different effects on residents’ behavior that includes the choice of
home location and various travel choices such as travel mode and parking location.
Some other studies provide evidence of relationships between residential parking and residents’
preferences. In 1993, Balcombe and York investigated the effects of parking measures in residential
areas in England that experienced severe parking problems. They found that residents reduce car use
because they are afraid of losing a close parking place. In addition, residents fear vandalism when the
car is parked at some distance from their home. Empirical evidence on the importance of distance
between home parking, and security for the design of parking facilities in residential areas was also
found by (Stubbs, 2002). He also investigated the effect of the layout of parking in residential areas
on residents’ preferences. It was found that if parking provision is not satisfactory regarding distance
and security, residents are unlikely to purchase a house in the neighborhood. (Borgers et al, 2008)
investigated residents’ preferences for residential areas with restrained car access. In a stated choice
experiment, residents were invited to evaluate hypothetical plans for residential neighborhoods. The
plans were defined using different transport-related characteristics including parking. The parking
situation was represented by a combined variable describing distance from home to parking facility
and presence of security. They found a negative effect of parking at distance from home on the
residents’ preferences. The negative effect is partly compensated by the presence of security.
Figure 2: Household car ownership and cars per hectare by degree of urbanization of the postal area
(Source: CBS/RDW 2007)
Moreover, the low level of utilization is affected by the separation of land-uses. This produces local
and temporary peaks in parking demand, during the day on work and leisure locations and during the
night at residential locations. In the off-peak periods, the utilization of parking supply is very low. In
areas having mixed-use development the use of parking facilities is often restricted to one user group
(residents or visitors). Residents use their private parking facilities like garages, drives and carports
often for other purposes and park their car in the public area. This leads to high parking pressures in
public space whilst the theoretical supply of parking is sufficient. Thus the residents are not willing to
walk long distances to the parking facilities. This results in illegal parking near the dwelling while
there is sufficient parking space available on other locations in the neighborhood (Coevering &
Snellen, 2008).
In the UK cars are usually parked either off-street in garages or on-street in residential areas. In a
nation-wide survey of 500 drivers conducted in 2005 reported that 73% of cars are parked off-street at
night – either in a garage (26%) or in a communal parking area (47%). Parking at older houses is
usually on-street, while that at detached properties is more likely to be off-street. Even amongst single
person households, who might prefer to live in areas where off-street parking is less likely to be
available, 60% of cars were parked off road. Over the previous seven years, the usage of garages had
reduced from 28% to 24%, despite the construction of more houses with garages, with more drivers
now choosing to park their car outside. The same survey found that a parking space will increase
around 8% of the value of a property, while a single garage will add a further 3%, and a double garage
a further 9%. However, at the same time, people appeared unwilling to pay directly for parking. When
asked what price they would pay to secure parking outside their homes per year, more than half those
surveyed would not pay anything; only 2% would pay over £500 (TRL, 2010).
day-and night time. As a solution authorities introduce paid parking and parking permits to mitigate
parking problems in these areas and reserve parking space for residents. In contrast, in single-use
suburbs built from 70’s onwards in the Netherlands, parking problems, are mainly caused by the high
levels of car ownership of households. The car was already an integral part of the urban development
plans of these suburbs, still these plans could not anticipate the vast growth of car ownership during
the past decades. The parking standards used are too low for the current level of car ownership.
Despite the high level of annoyance, residents hardly seem to adjust their level of car ownership to the
available parking space in their residential area. The benefit of owning an (additional) car seems to be
larger than the burden of the collective parking problems. This becomes more apparent from
questionnaires regarding the live ability in residential areas. The individual problem, lack of parking
space, is regarded as the major problem. The collective problem, the profusion of parked cars and
related nuisance are regarded as less important by residents. Furthermore, parking problems are rarely
a reason to relocate. People change their place of residence primarily because of factors related to the
type of dwelling and changes in household composition. In the extremely urbanized areas in major
cities, parking pressure plays a slightly larger role in residential mobility (Coevering & Snellen,
2008).
In the early 1990s, Balcombe and York undertook two surveys and examined the views of households
in a variety of residential areas and a sample of local authorities. One of the questions put forward to
residents comprised of valuing a parking space. Although the answers were hypothetical, the findings
reported that between 33 – 50% of car owners would be prepared to pay up to £50 annually for an on-
street space. One of the conclusions from the study was that pricing mechanisms alone were unlikely
to level demand. (Balcombe and York, 1993).
parking spaces. Parking without a permit is prohibited unless parking permits are combined with paid
parking. This way, visitors can also use the available parking space which has a positive effect on
utilizations. However, the concept of controlled parking zones is restricted city centers. Outside these
areas, lower densities make enforcement of these schemes more labor-intensive. The lack of mixed-
development reduces the amount of visitors and subsequently the potential for paid parking
(Coevering & Snellen, 2008).
Another way to discourage car ownership is the provision of alternatives such as efficient public
transport, proper facilities for cycling, walking and introduction of car sharing schemes. However, in
general, the potential to discourage car ownership is low. There is a limited relationship between
spatial and public transport characteristics and car ownership levels. Cycling and walking facilities are
desirable as these slow modes server as an alternative for the private car if small distances to facilities
are provided. Lower densities and single-use zoning in suburban areas makes distance to destinations
long thus making slow modes less attractive. Car sharing schemes have somehow affected the private
car ownership. It is most significant in old, high density neighborhoods in large cities only. The
overall effect of car sharing scheme, on the parking situation has been limited so far (Coevering &
Snellen, 2008).
Accessibility;
Built form/development patterns.
These factors were developed based on data availability and possible influences on parking
utilization. The independent variables included supply, average monthly parking cost to tenant,
average rent, density, household income, household size, bedroom count, presence of children, age,
distance to nearest transit stop, job density, proximity to schools, walk score, block size, and block
density. This research directs to consider the proper provision of parking, given several land use,
transit and walk factors. In some cases block size, population and job density, walk and transit access
to trip destinations influence parking utilization by 50 percent (Ransford et al., 2013).
residents do not have the idea about the costs (and returns) of residential parking and often consider
'free' parking as their right. Indeed, residents rarely pay directly for the use of parking space. The costs
of residential parking are paid via local taxes and these are added in the housing price. Furthermore,
the returns on parking permits do not cover the costs of enforcement and local governments use
revenues from paid parking in the city centers to compensate for the parking shortage in residential
areas. A relationship between the actual use of parking space and the costs is practically nonexistent
because most parking spaces are unallocated. Regardless of the household car ownership level every
household in a given residential area pays the same price for parking (Coevering & Snellen, 2008)
In order to meet the needs of future parking demand the principal of pay per use is necessary to be
considered. This will make the residents aware of the actual costs of residential parking and these
costs can affect their decisions while purchasing (additional) car. When residents are faced with the
actual costs of parking, more expensive parking solutions, such as automated parking systems may
become an option. To enable the pay-per-use principle, it is necessary to discern the indirect costs of
parking and these costs should be divided amongst the car owners. The introduction of the 'pay-per-
use' principle in residential parking will bring about a major cultural change in dealing with residential
parking.
Advantages of automated parking systems is that it reduced parking search traffic and thus saves time
that would be consumed in searching for parking space. It also reduces the chances of theft or
damage. The automated parking also shows environmental friendliness since engine is turned off. It
also offers advantages for municipalities in terms of space efficiency. Increased visual impact and
public safety. Less litter, fights and accidents because there are no people inside. No need for
installing signs, lighting, pedestrian areas etc. Cars inside are moved automatically, which means no
need for an expensive ventilation system. No need to employ staff (except for occasional
maintenance) (Rothary, 2014).
2.7.3. Working
The customer enters the parking garage and drives the car onto a platform. When the engine is turned
off, the overall size and shape of the vehicle is detected by the sensors used in the system. The system
analyzes where the car can be parked. Usually there is a payment terminal for the customer to pay for
parking. He receives a ticket or key with a customized code. As soon as the customer leaves the
parking garage, the car is moved vertically or horizontally to the available parking spot with the
robotic arms and platforms. When the customer comes back to pick up his car, the system uses the
code from his ticket to know which car to bring back to the platform. The customer can then enter the
vehicle and leave the garage.
2.7.4. History
Automated parking systems first appeared in Europe, Paris in
1906 and during 1920’s the North America. The need to
introduce automated parking systems was to maximize the
value of available land by condensing parking. The 1950’s the
industry was at its peak in North America with a number of
high profile systems built but demand for the systems fell off
shortly after that time. Although demand in other parts of the
world, notably Japan, Korea and parts of Europe, continued to Photo 9: Pigeon Hole Parking 1953
increase for automated parking systems, since the turn of the (Source: The old motor website)
century there have been around 15 systems installed in North America and the rate of installation is
increasing. These systems are fast, efficient and environmentally sound. The technology has been
refined over the last 100 years-however, the principle has remained the same: parking, simple and
automatic.
cost. The automated parking systems provide high quality of aesthetics to the environment by its
design integration and offer high returns on investment by its sustainable design features. Automated
parking systems require up to 50% less volume of the parking structure to handle the same number of
vehicles compared to conventional ramped parking facilities, this feature adds to the competitiveness
of automated parking systems as land prices in large cities are very high.
Cost factors such as ventilation systems, pedestrian elevators, emergency staircases and fire doors are
unnecessary in case of automated parking. So, the construction costs are thus comparable to average
costs of conventional parking buildings. Construction of parking facilities below ground adds to the
competitiveness of automated systems as less construction volume is required to handle the same
amount of cars. The following table from Walker Parking Consultants indicates construction cost
comparisons for a conventional garage versus an automated garage in three different configurations:
Table 1: Construction Cost Comparisons between Conventional Ramp Garages and Automated Garages
(Monahan, 2012)
Therefore, the conventional above grade garage is less costly per floor than the automated garage,
unless the site is very small that results in a very poorly efficient conventional garage. Automated
garage saves floor area at the high unit cost that counterbalances the cost of the automated machinery.
Similarly, the unit cost is even higher for underground garage construction (see details of financial
costs in annex I).
Compared to the conventional parking, computerized parking facilities require more electrical power
still the management and maintenance of these parking facilities is much less labor-intensive. In
addition, due to conveying technology, no polluting vehicle exhaust is emitted in the parking
building. Automated parking systems guarantee highest safety standards for persons and vehicles. The
transfer stations for entering and retrieving vehicles are located in well-lit, safe areas and are
monitored by security cameras. Once the vehicles enter the automated parking system, they are safe
from damage, dents, theft and vandalism. Exposure to vehicle exhaust in waiting lines is also
avoided.
Computer controlled parking garages enable and facilitate the integration of services, such as parking
space reservation systems, traffic control, carwash stations for parked vehicles and many more
innovative customer services and support systems. Ramped parking structures have an unaesthetic and
unfavorable existence in urban surroundings. Automated parking systems are constructed with a
closed facade, thus giving city planners and architects considerable freedom of design regarding the
shape and appearance of the parking facility. The investment in automated parking garages enables
high returns due to the high level of space efficiency and utilization. Automated parking systems
represent profitable investment opportunities for municipal authorities, parking corporations, property
and business owners as well as other investors.
Automated parking systems have a number of sustainability benefits over conventional parking. The
precise benefits vary with system type and project site but the general potential benefits includes
Author: Annum Khaliq 22
reduction in operational energy consumption because no internal lighting is required (except for
maintenance), simple ventilation as only two air changes per hour are required and no requirement for
other energy consuming assets including passenger lifts, amenities and barrier control systems.
Reduced vehicles emissions (CO2, NOx, PM10) as engines are switched off during parking process.
Smaller building footprint reduces the need for excavation and ground works, reducing the amount of
construction waste sent to landfill. High levels of recycled content through the use of steel in
equipment (steel has high levels of recycled content). Nontoxic materials are used in construction (e.g.
volatile organic compounds in paints). Reduced risk of accidents for pedestrians. Preferred parking for
car sharing and low emission vehicles. Electric vehicle charging facilities. Increased personal security
and safety especially at night. Reduced acoustic noise and spaces accessible to all users, e.g. disabled
or parents with children (FATA automation, 2014).
Photo 10: Residential renovation typified by the building at 1500 Hudson Street
(World parking symposium III, 2001)
Photo 11: Comparing before and after situations building automated parking facility (Woehr, 2014)
It only takes 137 sec on average for car retrieval. It has a capacity to carry out 100 car operations per
hour. 24 hour video monitoring is done. In the underground control room, it is possible to have a look
at the parking operations. 4 trained technicians are needed to carry out the operations. This parking
system has been awarded as the best European parking concepts 2007. It has a 100 % degree of
utilization. All 284 places are rented. The concept gained a very good acceptance since the start in
May 2006. Total cost 11. 5 Mio €, service cost 20 € per month and rental cost for residents 71 €
(Woehr, 2014).
Figure 3: Amount of park in and out operations per month (Woehr, 2014)
of the number of advantages offered by car parking systems, they will become much more common
within the next decade (Romax, 2014).
CHAPTER NO. 3
RESEARCH APPROACH
This chapter describes the research methodology used to complete the report. The first task was to
select the topic and find out background information to identify the true nature of problem and the
focus of research regarding this problem. The literature studied, focused mainly on characteristics of
residential parking and the ways in which it is done, draw backs of conventional parking techniques,
better ways of parking, innovative concepts of parking and their potential benefits over conventional
parking. Data collection process, analysis and conclusions are also discussed in detail.
and off-street). Efficient ways to better utilize existing parking, innovative parking systems and their
advantages over conventional parking and case studies of the implemented areas.
The literature regarding the automated parking systems is taken from the developer’s websites while
all the other topics are taken from scientific literature. The literature primarily targets the residential
parking and its management. Conventional parking methods explain the way how parking is done
currently and its draw backs illustrate the parking issues that are faced by the users. Efficient ways of
parking include different strategies that can be adopted to better utilize the existing parking and
provide solutions to existing parking issues.
The other part of the literature diverts attention to some technical solutions such as automated and
semi-automated systems that have been used for better management of parking in residential areas by
most of the developed countries and their implementation benefits over conventional parking.
CHAPTER NO. 4
AREA PROFILE & FOCUS GROUP
This chapter discusses the profile of the study area and the methodology adopted for data collection.
The qualitative data collection method of focus group along with its advantages and limitations are
highlighted in this chapter. In addition to the focus group, observation plan is also discussed in this
chapter.
Figure 6: Map of Hasselt, Green part showing study area, Runkst. (Source: Parking in Hasselt, 2014)
area. The information to be recorded on the observation form included date and time of observation,
name of street, its distance from city center in meters, number of housing units, street width, type of
housing, type of parking, type of on-street parking and type of off-street parking along with the
number of spaces available, parking issue other land uses in the street and any free space available in
the street. The objective behind setting up the observation plan was to find out the existing situation of
parking (issues, free space and type of parking) in the study area.
Data Collection
CollectionCo
llection
Observation Focus Group
Plan
In order to conduct observations precisely some of the data aid was taken from the municipality, these
include land use map of Runkst, map showing the parking facilities in the area, data or reports
regarding vehicle registration/ownership, parking issues, type of parking facilities available, census
report showing the population, income level of residents and property types/ housing units/ dwelling
types/ demographic data, reports regarding parking management/ policies in Hasselt, research reports
if any parking study has been conducted by the municipality. This was all included in the website
given by the resource person from the Hasselt municipality
(http://aps.vlaanderen.be/lokaal/cijfers_domein.htm).
The area to be observed consists of following streets:
1. Boomkensstraaat
2. Woutersstraat
3. Runkstersteenweg
4. Gaarveldstraat
5. Beukenstraat
6. Acaciastraat
7. Wilgenstraat
8. Spoorwegstraat
9. Vredestraat
10. Helipoststraat
11. Jasmijnstraat
12. Djef Antenstraat
13. Smedenlaan
14. Beokstraat
topics. The facilitator creates an environment that encourages participants to share their perceptions
and points of view. The data collected through focus group is descriptive and cannot be measured
numerically (University of Strathclyde, 2015).
Participants generally are allowed to say anything they like in focus groups sessions. Focus groups
therefore are considered to be naturalistic (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The researcher listens not only
for the content of focus group discussions, but for emotions, ironies, contradictions and tensions that
are helpful in gaining insight. Survey research, on the other hand, enables researchers to make
predictions about the occurrence of a phenomenon on a large scale. Focus groups can provide
trustworthy naturalistic data that also lead to important insights about human behavior, but they aren’t
set up to generalize in the same way as survey research (Fern, 2001). More information regarding the
purpose, types, uses, characteristics, features and guidelines of conducting focus group are provided in
the annex II.
Advantages
Focus group is quick and relatively easy to set up then other research techniques. The group dynamic
can provide useful information that individual data collection does not provide. It is useful for gaining
insight into a topic that may be more difficult to gather through other data collection methods.
Information is provided more quickly than if people were interviewed separately. It encourages
interaction between participants. The researcher can interact with the participants and ask questions
that probe more deeply. When participants are stimulated to discuss, the group dynamics can generate
new thinking about a topic which will result in a much more in-depth discussion. As every participant
is under observation by the moderator and everybody knows that the process has been videotaped, it is
easy to make participants fully engage even during non-discussion time. Results can be easier to
understand than complicated statistical data. The researcher can get information from non-verbal
responses, such as facial expressions or body language. In a face to face interview, moderator can
keep the discussion under control and focus on the areas of interest. Free and open discussion among
the respondents results in generation of new ideas which can be very useful for decision making. A
focus group is not static. The moderator can bring changes in order to better facilitate the discussion
during the group discussion. This dynamism allows better results. Fully equipped modern focus group
facilities enables participants to observe the discussion in order to better understand the research
findings and also to quality control the whole process (ICS, 2012).
Disadvantages
A major disadvantage of focus group is that it is susceptible to facilitator bias, which affects the
validity and reliability of findings. The discussion is sometimes sidetracked by a few individuals.
Focus groups generate lots of qualitative information, but no quantitative information from which
generalizations can be made. Information can be difficult to analyze. It is difficult to encourage people
to participate. Participants may feel under pressure to agree with the dominant view. Compared to
individual interviews, focus groups are not as efficient in covering maximum depth on a particular
issue. Compared with surveys and questionnaires, focus groups are much more expensive to execute.
Usually, each participant will have to be compensated in cash or any other benefit. The moderator
plays an essential role in handling the situation, but if the moderator is not experienced enough, it is
Author: Annum Khaliq 32
very easy for the whole discussion to be dominated by a few people. Moderators can greatly influence
the outcome of a focus group discussion. They may, intentionally or unintentionally, introduce their
personal biases into the participants' exchange of ideas. This can result in inaccurate results. The small
sample size of participants in a focus group might not be a good representation of the larger
population. Due to small sample size and heterogeneity of individuals, focus groups findings may not
be adequate to make projections. On the other hand if the number of participants in the group is large,
discussions can be difficult to steer and control, so time can be lost in irrelevant topics. The
moderator's skill in phrasing questions along with the setting can affect responses and skew results
(Temkin, 2007).
A focus group can be a very artificial set up which influence the respondents to express and act
unnaturally. The findings may be far from the reality. However, focus group research is a useful tool
for qualitative research in various fields of study, from marketing to engineering and from finance to
public administration (ICS, 2012).
Author: Annum Khaliq 33
CHAPTER NO. 5
ANALYSIS OF FOCUS GROUP
This chapter discusses the existing conditions of parking in Runkst. This existing condition of parking
was analyzed using observation technique. The observation was conducting using observation form
on which the information such as type of on-street parking and off-street parking, type of housing,
distance of parking facility from city center, capacity of parking available along with the time, date
and street name was recorded. It further elaborates the way how the focus group was conducted in
collaboration of municipality of Hasselt, to identify the best parking concept that can be applied in the
selected study area. The detailed procedure of observations, focus group session and its analysis &
findings are also highlighted in this chapter.
The observations were conducted in the morning and afternoon. It was clear from the observations
that the streets with more number of housing units in the form of row housing had more number of
cars parked on street. This shows that parking problems are more obvious in areas with high car
occupancy rates. In case of row housing the parking situation was more adverse. It was also observed
Author: Annum Khaliq 34
that usually people are prone to the habit of keeping their cars in front of their doors they feel more
secure if the car is parked on the pavement in in front of their doors. This shows that any concept
which keeps the car in front of the owner’s house would be accepted more than the concept of
keeping cars away from owners home.
It was also observed that there is a very less significance of the distance of the street from the city
center on the parking condition of the street, but if there are some other land uses such as shops,
restaurants, bakeries etc. available in the street then this condition affects the parking situation in the
areas and parking issues arise. The distance of the street from the center is measured using Map
window software.
During the weekends the parking situations in some streets gets worst due to non-availability of space
for visitors. Although there is provision for visitor parking by the municipality but that seems not to
be efficient. The most prominent parking issue observed was less number of space available for
parking, pavement parking that damages the pavement and illegal parking. The capacity of on-street
parking is very less as compared to the demand. The street width is affected by the on-street parking
that causes obstruction for cyclists and other road users thus causing road user conflicts. Most of the
streets have on-street type of parking and the cars are parked back to back on the pavement. In some
streets there are pavement marking for parking cars on street but most of the streets lack these
markings.
There is no separate space for cyclists along the road which is dangerous for them. Off-street parking
is not much used by the residents and there are almost no free spaces available in the streets that can
be used for parking purposes by the residents. Streets with apartment building do not show any
problem for parking as they have spaces available for cars to be parked in the space allotted by the
apartment building. The parking situation can be analyzed from Photo 15 given below:
5.4. Analysis
There are several methods for analyzing focus groups these include:
Constant comparison analysis
Classical content analysis
Keywords-in-context
The first step in many approaches to analyze the focus group data is to have the entire interview
transcribed. The most common analyses of focus group results involve a transcript of the discussion
and a summary of the conclusions that can be drawn. Transcription not only facilitates further
analysis, but also it establishes a permanent written record of the group discussion that can be shared
with other interested parties.
Constant comparison analysis. This type of analysis has three major stages (Strauss & Corbin,
1998). In the first stage known as open coding, the data is chunked into small units. A code or
descriptor is attached to each of the units by the researcher. During the second stage called as axial
coding, these codes are grouped into categories. Finally, in the third and final stage of selective
Author: Annum Khaliq 36
coding, one or more themes are developed by the researchers that express the content of each of the
groups (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Focus group data can be analyzed via constant comparison analysis,
especially when there are multiple focus groups within the same study (Anthony et al., 2009).
Classical content analysis. Similar to constant comparison analysis, classical content analysis also
creates small chunks of data and a code is placed with each chunk. However, instead of creating a
theme from the codes, these codes then are placed into similar groupings and counted.
Keywords-in-context. This type of analysis is used to determine how words are used in context with
other words. Keywords-in-context represents an analysis of the culture of the use of the word
(Fielding & Lee, 1998). Keywords-in-context involves a contextualization of words that are
fundamental for the development of themes and theory, by analyzing words that appear before and
after each keyword, leading to an analysis of the culture of the use of the word (Fielding & Lee, 1998)
(Anthony et al., 2009).
In this study a simple matrix (see Table 10 in annex III) is used to indicate the number of participants
falling for an option, since it’s a qualitative research so there is no need to indicate the frequencies in
number. Only text will be used to analyze that which parking concept is ranked best among the given
choices.
Condition of on-street & off street parking. The next question was about the characteristics of on-
street and off-street parking this question was asked to identify the quality & condition of these two
types of parking and are the residents satisfied by the availability of these parking types or not.
On-Street Parking. All the participants mentioned that on-street parking seems aesthetically
unpleasant, capacity wise insufficient and quality of on-street parking is average. The graph below
describes the characteristics of on-street parking in Runkst as explained by the participants in the
focus group.
Author: Annum Khaliq 37
Off-Street Parking. Participant one, mentioned that off-street parking seems aesthetically pleasant,
capacity wise sufficient and quality of on-street parking is good. Although these off-street parking
spaces are accessible by automobile (means far for residents) and level of utilization is medium. Other
two Participants, declared that off-street parking seems aesthetically unpleasant, capacity wise in
sufficient and quality of on-street parking is good. These off-street parking spaces are accessible by
automobile, by foot and by bicycle and level of utilization is high.
The next section contained questions about the concepts. Section II was designed in such a way that
the concepts were defined and the questions related to the concept were asked followed by the
explanation. The concepts to be evaluated includes:
Centralized Parking
Shared Parking
Parking freezes
Demand Reduction
Smart Parking
Automated parking
Private car parks
Applicability of Centralized Parking in Runkst. When asked if the concept of centralized parking
would be applicable in Runkst. Participant one, mentioned that centralized parking is not applicable in
Runkst, because people prefer to park in front of their houses and also there is no space available to
Author: Annum Khaliq 38
construct centralized parking facility. Other Participants, declared that centralized parking is
applicable in Runkst, because it is financially feasible, partially conforms with the policy and will
increase the livability and safety of the area.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if the concept of centralized parking would be accepted by
the residents in Runkst. According to participant one, only 20-40% of the residents will be willing to
use the centralized parking if introduced in Runkst. While other Participants, mentioned 40-60%
residents will be willing to use centralized parking. This shows that this concept will also be accepted
by the community.
Strengths/ Benefits
Can create more space on street, which makes the streets aesthetically look better.
Less search traffic
More capacity
Less parking pressure in street & increased spatial organization
Weakness /Consequences
Theft & vandalism
Increased distance, less social safety because of door to door mentality
Illegal parking will increase and more turnover
Due to increased walking distance people want to park the cars as close as possible
Applicability of Shared Parking in Runkst. When asked if the concept of shared parking would be
applicable in Runkst. All the Participants one agreed because it is financially feasible, conforms with
policy, increases livability and adds a little to increase the safety of the area.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if the concept of shared parking would be accepted by the
residents in Runkst. All the Participants told that the concept will be 40-60% accepted by the
residents.
Strengths/Benefits
Better level of utilization of parking spaces.
More space on-street better living
Rent of private parking means financial benefits
Weakness /Consequences
Not a good solution for off-street parking.
Not all the citizens will have more space if they want to park at 10pm
Agreement has to be set among the parking providers.
More use of organization’s resources time and money. People need to collaborate for public
private partnership that cannot be made obligatory
Livability of the Neighborhood will be affected
Vandalism
Applicability of Parking Freezes in Runkst. When asked if this concept would be applicable in
Runkst. Participant one agreed that the concept is applicable but it is not financially feasible neither it
conforms with policy but it can increase livability and safety of the area. Participant two also agreed
on the applicability of the concept because it is financially feasible, conforms with policy and can
increase livability and safety of the area. Third Participant denied, for its applicability because of
limited connection with public transport.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if this concept would be accepted by the residents in Runkst.
Participant one & three, mentioned that the concept will be 20-40% accepted by the residents.
Participant two, mentioned that the concept will be accepted by 80-100% people. This shows that the
concept would be less acceptable by the community.
Author: Annum Khaliq 39
Strengths/ Benefits
Aesthetically better less car on streets.
More supply of parking, more comfort, less search traffic
Due to increased walking distance people want to park the cars as close as possible
More capacity, less parking pressure
Weakness /Consequences
Intervention of police theft & vandalism
Illegal parking will increase and more turnover.
It will change policy for visitor parking & employees using the blue zone disc more than the
allowed time.
Politically not feasible, intervention of police
Applicability of Demand reduction in Runkst. When asked if this concept would be applicable in
Runkst. All Participants agreed for the applicability of the concept because it is financially feasible
and can increase livability and safety of the area to a great extent but it does not conform with the
policy.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if this concept would be accepted by the residents in Runkst.
Two participants said that, the concept will be 20-40% accepted by the residents. According to third
participant, less than 20%.
Strengths/ Benefits
Aesthetically better more space on streets
Increased parking space
Fits best if applied in city center
Weakness/Consequences
Not good for short trips.
Usually need more time to wait for buses and other public transports.
Not a time efficient solution.
High cost of building & maintenance
Not applicable in residential area
It needs renaming the streets and good enforcement that needs money
Applicability of Smart Parking in Runkst. When asked if this concept would be applicable in
Runkst. All the participants were strongly agree for the applicability of the concept, because it
conforms with the policy and can increase livability and safety of the area to a great extent but it is not
financially feasible.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if this concept would be accepted by the residents in Runkst.
Participant one, the concept will be 40-60% accepted by the residents. Second participant mentioned
80-100%, third participant mentioned less than 60-80%. This shows that the acceptability
Strengths/ Benefits
Parking search behavior
Less traffic more diversion of parking
High comfort.
Less search traffic
Weakness /Consequences
Difficult to be understood by elderly people
Technically complex to be implemented
High infrastructure charges
Author: Annum Khaliq 40
Applicability of Automated Parking in Runkst. When asked if this concept would be applicable in
Runkst. Participant one, strongly agreed that the concept is applicable because it conforms with the
policy and can increase livability and safety of the area to a great extent but it is not financially
feasible. Other participants did not agree about the acceptability of the concept due to its increased
walking distance and does not integrate with spatial planning and other regulations.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if this concept would be accepted by the residents in Runkst.
Participant one, mentioned that the concept will be 20-40% accepted by the residents. Participant two
told, 40-60%. Participant three, less than 20%. This shows that this concept would be less acceptable
by the community.
Strength/ Benefits
Less space usage quick storage of vehicles
No theft vandalism
Aesthetically better
More space on street
Compact solution
Weakness /Consequences
If residents need to walk far way they won’t prefer it.
Residents cannot park in front of their doors.
Require technical assistance
Applicability of Private car parks in Runkst. When asked if this concept would be applicable in
Runkst. All the three participants agreed about the applicability of private car parks in the study area,
because it is financially feasible, conform with the policy and can increase livability and safety of the
area.
Acceptability by residents. When asked if this concept would be accepted by the residents in Runkst.
Participant one indicated that, the concept will be 40-60% accepted by the residents. Participant two
said, 100-80% while third participant mentioned it would only be accepted by 20-40%. This shows
that there is more possibility of this concept to be accepted by the community.
Strengths/Benefits
Aesthetically better more space on streets
Effective & cheap solution
More parking comfort
Better use of space
More capacity
Weakness/ Consequences
Elderly cannot use it
Difficult to find the tariffs
Better use of parking
Dependent on who is providing space
Less applicable in city center
Author: Annum Khaliq 41
Ranking of Concepts. The concepts are given a score on a scale of 7-1. 1 as the highest and 7 the
least score. As shown in the table participant one ranked private car parks as the best concept.
Participant two and three ranked centralized parking and shared parking
Reason for being the best possible concept. According to participant one, smart parking has a high
cost so private car parks is the best possible solution however, a mix of concepts can be used, such as
demand reduction with private car parks can solve a lot of parking problems present in Runkst and
other parts of Hasselt. According to Participant two, centralized parking is the most appropriate
solution. Because the municipality can implement it independently as it is relatively cheap and does
not need involvement of political parties and can be integrated within the spatial structure of the city.
While third participant indicated that shared parking, can prove to be the best solution for Runkst, as it
can be integrated with the current policy, more efficient space usage and provides more alternatives
for the residents to select space closer to their homes. The detailed analysis is given in the form of
matrix placed in annex III (see Table 4).This shows that a mix of these three concepts or one of them
can be applied to solve the parking issues in the area
Author: Annum Khaliq 42
CHAPTER NO. 6
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter discusses the conclusions and recommendations that have been deduced from a detailed
study of literature. It is concluded that the car ownership rate is growing with the population so the
places to reside those vehicles also need to be increased. It is a challenge for the local authorities to
provide spaces and manage the demand for parking efficiently without damaging the environment and
aesthetics of urban fabric. The issues with residential parking are not just limited to demand and
supply of parking but also related to proper utilization of the existing parking facilities. The existing
facilities can only be utilized by making efficient parking policies and their enforcement. Parking
regulations such as fines or penalties for noncompliance of parking rules can help solving problems
such as illegal parking, obstructive driveways or leaving abandoned vehicles on road. On-street
parking, is always preferred by the residents and authorities because it is close and cheap but on the
other hand it is aesthetically unpleasant to see lot of cars parking on the road. Off-street parking
facilities are efficient but these raise concerns such as underutilization because very less residents are
willing to pay for them. The efficiency and effectiveness of these conventional parking methods can
be enhanced greatly by using parking concepts such as shared parking, centralized parking, in-lieu
fees and smart parking. These concepts are helpful not only for the residents but also for the
authorities because no or very less additional cost is incurred. Moreover, automated driving systems
are technically very advanced and can be used as the most efficient car parking concepts. Although
these are expensive but have very successfully solved all the issues regarding parking. The features of
automated systems such as less fuel usage, sustainable designs, and reduced space, lighting, heating
and ventilation requirements have grasped the eyes of investors. The increased acceptance of such
system is creating innovation in performing parking management efficiently. From the observations
and analysis of focus group it is clear that the major issue in the area is related to less available
parking spaces and illegal parking. The condition of on-street parking is not of good quality and also
in-sufficient for the residents, while off-street parking is somehow in better condition. Concepts such
as centralized parking, shared parking and private car parks are applicable and acceptable by the
community as these are financially feasible, conforms with the policy and if implemented can add a
lot to the livability and safety of the area. It is concluded that a mix of these concepts if implemented
in the area can reduce the issues of parking to a great extent. The study also revealed that focus group
(compared to other survey, data collection techniques) can be used as an effective tool to gain insights
regarding the introduction of a particular idea or technique that how much this idea would be accepted
or rejected by the community.
6.1. Conclusions
Parking in residential areas is managed using on-street and off-street parking methods, these methods
are becoming inefficient to cater for the future demand of parking. Large number of parking problems
have been associated to these conventional parking methods with respect to residential areas. These
parking problems have many perspectives such as demand, supply and utilization. Environmental,
social (illegal parking, obstructive parking, parking of abondanded vehciles on road, vandalism etc.)
and aesthetics are just some other dimensions of residential parking problems that are usually
neglected and not taken into account.
Residential parking is managed by the local authorities or city councils. These authorities are
responsible for enforcement and regulation of parking bye-laws. There are certain factors that should
Author: Annum Khaliq 43
be kept in mind while devising solutions to parking problems associated to residential areas, these
include the resident’s choice and willingness to pay for parking. This solely depend on the income
level of the community. Proposing a parking concept in an area completely depends on the
characteristics of that area and its inhabitants either they need that particular concept and will accept it
or not. The characteristics of the community where the parking concept is going to be proposed need
to be studied. Some other aspects that should be considered while proposing a parking solution in a
residential area includes car ownership rate, parking supply and price, affordability, accessibility,
property characteristics (apartments or semi-detached), neighborhood household characteristics and
development patterns, average monthly parking cost to tenant, average rent, density, household
income, household size, bedroom count, presence of children, age, distance to nearest transit stop, job
density, proximity to schools, walk score, block size, and block density.
The parking solutions may not always be of physical nature that is in terms of infrastructural reforms
but these can also be in terms of promoting other modes of trasit and providing incentives for non-
auto modes of transport that discourage car ownership. The use of existing parking facilities or spaces
can also be optimized by provding subsidized parking schemes and reducing overall parking costs. If
in any residential area the issue is related to less parking space the authority should create more
parking space. The authority can also solve parking issues using the innovative ways of parking
utilization (e.g., in-lieu parking fees to cover costs of city garages, shared parking arrangements when
users park at different times of the day, shuttle buses from centralized parking facilities). Smart
Parking is also used nowadays as a tool to propler utilize the existing parking facilities. Automate
parking systems can also be a solution in densely populated areas. The case studies have indicated that
although these systems gained acceptance after a long time and are highly expensive to be proposed
as a solution to residential parking problems but are highly effiecient in space requirements, design,
sustainablilty and security as compared to the conventional parking concepts.
The literature defines parking problems and their solutions in the perspectives given below:
Inadequate information for motorists on parking availability and price. The solution could be
to improve use information.
Inadequate user options. The solution could be to improve parking options, such as letting
residents choose between convenient, priced parking and less convenient, free/inexpensive
parking.
Inconvenient parking pricing methods, such as mechanical meters that require users to predict
how long they will be parked and only accept certain coins. The solution could be to improve
pricing systems.
Inefficient use of existing parking capacity. The solution could be to use parking
management strategies that result in more efficient use of parking facilities.
Excessive automobile use. The solution could be to reduce automobile dependency and
encourage transportation alternatives.
Concerns over spillover parking congestion in nearby areas if parking supply is inadequate or
priced. The solution could be to provide parking management and enforcement in impacted
areas.
Economic, environmental and aesthetic impacts of parking facilities. The solution could be to
reduce parking supply and improve parking facility design.
Keeping in view the findings from the observations, it is concluded that less parking space and illegal
parking are major problems prevailing in study area (Runkst). The capacity of on-street parking is
very less as compared to the demand. Parking problems are more obvious in streets with high car
occupancy rates. In case of row housing the parking situation was more adverse. People are prone to
Author: Annum Khaliq 44
the habit of keeping their cars in front of their doors they feel more secure if the car is parked on the
pavement in front of their doors so the off-street parking is not much used by the residents.
Obstruction in driveways for other road users was also observed with creates safety issues especially
for pedestrians and cyclists. Visitor parking is not efficiently managed by the municipality. The
presence of other land uses such as shops, restaurants, bakeries etc. in the street affects the parking
situation in the areas and gives rise to parking issues.
The findings from the focus group show that financial feasibility and integration with the parking
policy are two important aspects that should be fulfilled for the applicability of the concept. Concepts
such as centralized parking, shared parking and private car parks are applicable and acceptable by the
community as these are financially feasible, conforms with the policy and if implemented can add a
lot to the livability and safety of the area. Also the municipality can implement these independently,
does not need involvement of political parties and can be integrated within the spatial structure of the
city. It is concluded that a mix of these concepts if implemented in the area can reduce the issues of
parking to a great extent.
6.2. Recommendations
Residential parking problems have various perspectives and dimensions, which can be solved by
implementing combination of parking management strategies or innovative parking systems
depending on the level of acceptance, affordability and ease of usage by the community.
It is recommended that combination of parking strategies should be explored such as combining
residential parking permits and time limits. Residential parking permits coupled with 2 or 4-hour time
limits can protect neighborhoods from long-term commuter parking spillover. The policy of double
use of parking can also be adopted. The municipality should pursue the use of public lots for smart
parking. This new technology uses real-time information for making people aware of availability of
parking space. A successful parking strategy requires extensive on-going coordination and planning
for increased parking demand. The authorities should survey the parking situation annually to identify
problems and seek solutions. Certain strategies should be introduced that can result in a reduced
demand for parking, such as transit incentive programs, car sharing, shuttles and shared parking that
prove to be beneficial in the context of residential areas.
The residents and municipality are the key stakeholders for parking concerns in a community. So, it is
recommended that the municipality should make parking policies with the aim to discourage car use
and optimize existing parking space instead of creating more space for parking. Residents are the key
players for the well-being of a community. To mitigate the issues related to parking, residents need to
understand the importance of parking policies and concepts. These parking concepts are introduced to
meet the future parking needs of the area and for the overall betterment of the community. If the
residents need the environment near their homes to be safe and aesthetically pleasant, they need to
change their habit of keeping car in front of their door and abide by the changing need of parking
management. Moreover, all the concepts mentioned in the study are valuable, but their application
varies depending on the situation and conditions of the parking issues of the area for which they are
proposed. The research also paves the way for future research related to the current topic such as
carrying out the assessment of financial feasibility of the identified innovative concepts using cost
benefit analysis. This piece of research serves the basis for evaluating which concept would be
financially acceptable by the municipality.
Author: Annum Khaliq 45
References
Anthony, J.O., Wendy, B.D., Nancy, L.L.,& Annmarie, G.Z. (2009). A Qualitative Framework for
Collecting and Analyzing Data in Focus Group Research, International journal of Qualitative
Methods. Retrieved on 25 April, 2015 from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0.
Automotion parking systems. (2014). Retrieved on 19 Octuber 2014 from innovative parking
solutions: http://automotionparking.com/contact.php
Balcombe, R.J. & York, I.O. (1993). The Future of Residential Parking, Project Report 22, Transport
Research Laboratory, Crow thorne, UK.
Behrendt, C. (1940). Off-street parking: a city planning problem. The journal of land & public utility
economics, 464-467.
Beimborn, E. A. (2015). Center for Urban Transportation Studies . Retrieved on 13 March 2015 from
University of Wisconsin-Milwauki: https://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/focus.htm
Borgers, A., Snellen, D., Poelman, J. & Timmermans, H. (2008). Preferences for Car-Restrained
Residential Areas, Journal of Urban Design 13, 257-267.
Box, P.C. (1966). Streets should not be used as parking lots. Congressional records , 112.
Box, P.C. (1968). The curb parking effect, public safety systems. 101.
Brown, A. (2014). PB online team collaboration. Retrieved on 20 Feburary 2014 from PB online team
collaboration: http://focusgroups.pbworks.com/w/page/5677429/Introduction
Brussels-Europe Liaison Office. (2014). Parking Policy in Brussels. Retrieved on 8 November, 2014,
from http://www.blbe.be/en/parking-policy-Brussels
CBS/RDW (Statistics Netherlands/Road Traffic Department). (2007). Car Ownership statistics. The
Hague.
City of Muenchen. (2014). Cars & traffic parking zones. Retrieved on 11 November, 2014, from
http://www.muenchen.de/int/en/traffic/cars-and-traffic/parking-zones.html
City of Belleuve. (2014). Neighbourhood Traffic Safety services. Retrieved on 6 November, 2014,
from http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/parking-management.htm
Citizen’s information board. (2014). Parking fines and vehicle clamping. Retrieved on 22 November,
2014, from
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/traffic_and_parking/parking_fine
s_and_vehicle_clamping.html
Coevering, P.V.D. & Snellen, D. (2008). The Future of Residential Parking in the Netherlands: The
Impact of Increasing Car Ownership on the Character of Residential Areas, Netherlands
Institute for Spatial Research. Association of Europeon Transport & contributors.
Department of Transport. (2003). Problems and creative solutions. Retrieved on 15 November, 2014,
from http://pipta.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Parking-Problems-and-Creative-
Solutions.pdf
Department of City Planning New York. (2009). Residential areas. Retrieved on 10 November, 2014,
from http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/transportation/residential_parking.pdf
Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). (2014). Smart Parking. Retrieved on 20 November, 2014,
from http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/CS-sp-marlborough.html
Grudens, S. N.,Allen, B. L. & Larson, K. (2004). “Methodology Brief: Focus Group Fundamentals",
Extension Community and Economic Development Publications. Book 12. Retrieved on 23
April, 2015, from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/extension_communities_pubs/12
Golias, J., Yannis, G. & Harvatis, M. (2002). Off-street parking choice sensitivity. Transportation
Planning and Technol., 2002, Vol. 25, pp. 333–348.
Guo, Z. (2013). Residential street parking and car ownership. Journal of the american planning
association, 79:1, 32-48.
Guo, Z. (2013). Does residential parking supply affect household car ownership? The case of New
York City. Journal of Transport Geography 26 (2013) 18-28.
Institute of Consumer Studies (ICS). (2012). Focus group features advantages & disadvantages.
Reterived on 12 Feburary 2012 from http://myics.org/marketing/focus-group-research-
features-advantages-and-disadvantages/
Innovative parking solutions. (2014). Retrieved on 15 Octuber 2014from 3m motor vehicle systems
&
services:http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3m/en_us/na_motor_vehicle_services_systems/m
otor_vehicle_industry_solutions/parking-tolling-dmv-solutions/parking-solutions/
Kelly,J.A. & Clinch,J.P.(2003).Testing the sensitivity of Parking Behaviour and modal choice to the
price of on-street parking. Environmental Studies Research Series (ESRS) Working
Paper03/3, Department of Environmental Studies, University College Dublin.
Author: Annum Khaliq 47
Kelly,J.A. & Clinch, J.P.(2006).Influence of varied parking tariffs on parking occupancy levels by trip
purpose.TransportPolicy13(6),487–495.
Kelly,J.A. & Clinch,J.P.(2009).On-street parking pricing: ex ante and ex post profile analysis
following a 50%increaseinon-streetparkingcharges in Dublin city.
Manville, M and Shoup, D. (2005). Parking, People and cities. Journal of urban planning and
development. pp 233-245.
Marsden,.R. (2006). The evidence base for parking polices – a review. Transport policy, 13 (6). pp.
447- 457. Retrieved from
http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2023/2/its15_the_evidence_base_for_parking_policies_uploada
ble.pdf
McShane, M. and Meyer, M.D. (1982) Parking policy and urban goals: linking strategy to needs,
Transportation, 11, pp. 131-152
McDonald, S. (2012). Car, Parking and Sustainability, Transportation and the Environment, Abstract
for Paper Presentation Proposal, Retrieved from
http://www.trforum.org/forum/downloads/2012_112_Cars_Parking_Sustain.pdf on October
31, 2014.
Molenda, I and Sieg,G. (2013). Residential parking in vibrant city districts. Economics of
transportation 2 (2013) 131-139.
Ornstein, G. (1966). Parking in residential areas. American Society of Planning Officials. Retrieved
on 20 November, 2014, from https://www.planning.org/pas/at60/report214.htm
Parking Forum. (2014). On-street parking in residential areas. Retrieved on 15 November, 2014, from
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/position%20papers/Position%20Pa
per%2004.pdf
Parking reforms organization. (2014). Parking problems. Retrieved on 20 Octuber 2014 from parking
reform: http://www.parkingreform.org/good-policies.html
Ransford,S.M., Morse, S., Daniel,R. & Hass, P. (2013). Do land use, transit, and walk access affect
residential parking demand? ITE journal.
Romax. (2014). History & challenges of toronto parking systems. (2014, december 4). Retrieved from
toronto parking systems: http://www.torontoparkingsystems.com/
San Rafael Civic Center Station Area Plan. (2014). Retrieved on 20 November, 2014, from
http://marininfo.org/SMART/Land_Use/SMART_LAND_USE_Chapt_5.html
Shiftan, Y. (2002). The effects of parking pricing and supply on travel patterns to a major business
district. In: Stern, E., Salomon, I., Bovy, P.H.L. (Eds.), Travel Behaviour. Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Shoup, D. (2005). The high cost of free parking. American planing association.
Snellen ,D., Hilbers, H., & Hendriks, A. (2005). Nieuwbouw in beweging. Een analyse van het
ruimtelijke mobiliteitsbeleid van Vinex. Rotterdam/The Hague: NAi/Netherlands Institute for
spatial research.
Spiliopoulou, C. & Antoniou, C. (2012). Analysis of illegal parking behavior in Greece. Science
Direct 48 (2012) 1622-1637.
Stubbs, M. (2010). Car parking and residential development: sustainability, design and planning
policy, and public perceptions of parking provision. Urban design, 213-237.
Transport Research Limited. (2010). Parking Measures and Policies Research Review. Retrieved on
20 November, 2014, from
http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Library/Reports%20and%20research/parki
ngreport.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1999). Parking Alternatives. Retrieved on
20 November, 2014, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/prkgde04.pdf
USAID. (1996). Performance monitoring & evaluation tips, conducting the focus group interviews.
Retrieved on 10 November 2014 from usaid centre of development & information :
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaby233.pdf
University of Strathclyde. (2015). Qualitative research. Retrieved on 11 March, 2015 from University
of Strathclyde Humanities & Social Sciences:
https://www.strath.ac.uk/aer/materials/3datacollection/unit5/whatisobservation/
Vereniging Eigen Huis. (2007). Onderzoek naar ergernissen in de woonomgeving. Eigen huis
Magazine. September 2007.
Victoria Transport Policy. (2014). Shared parking. Retrieved on 15 November, 2014, from victoria
transport policy institute tdm encyclopedia: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm89.htm
Author: Annum Khaliq 49
Virginia P. Sisiopiku. (2014). On-street parking on state roads. Retrieved on October 31, 2014 from
http://ite.org/traffic/documents/AB01H6301.pdf.
Waerden, P.V.D., De Bruin, M., Timmermans, H. & Van Loon, P. (2011). Willingness to pay for
parking in residential areas in the. Urban planning group. University of Eindhoven.
Weinberger, R. (2012). Death by a thousand curb cuts: evidence on the effect of minimum parking
requirements on the choice to drive. Transport policy. 20 (12), pp. 93-102.
Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). (2014). Functional & Operational. Retrieved on 20
November, 2014, from http://www.wbdg.org/design/func_oper.ph
This Table 7 illustrates the financial costs of providing parking facilities under various conditions. (CBD =
Central Business District)
This Table 8 shows an estimate of total parking costs per vehicle and their distribution. It indicates that users
only pay directly for about a quarter of total parking costs. The rest are borne indirectly through taxes, reduced
wages, and additional costs for goods and services.
Author: Annum Khaliq 52
Homogenous not Diverse Focus group researchers select and invite 20-25 people with
similar characteristics to a single session. The goal is to fill the room with a minimum of 10-
12 participants that are similar which is supposed to increase the quality of the data (Krueger
and Casey, 2000).
Flexible not standardized During the course of a two-hour session, a natural conversation
will be produced because individuals are allowed to laugh, tell personal stories, revisit earlier
questions, disagree with other research, the moderator only needs to lead the conversation on
track by applying his prepared interview guide. Actually, a well-designed guide encourages
group members to relax, open up, think deeply and consider alternatives.
Words not Numbers Focus groups rely upon words spoken by participants. A report based
on focus groups will feature patterns formed by words, called themes or perspectives.
Numerical analysis is not a preferred technique. In fact, it is inappropriate to report a result of
focus groups by percentage (Brown, 2014).
forms of compensation can be used with the most common being a cash payment, lunch or
dinner. Snacks and beverages may also be provided at the discussion.
Determine the Equipment needed. The researcher must determine how detailed information
is needed to be obtained from the discussion. This will determine whether to audio tape,
videotape, or simply take notes. The advantage of videotaping is that it allows the research
team to easily make note of the important quotes and comments made during the discussion.
This will allow the person reviewing the tape to quickly locate these comments and record the
exact information. If the sessions will be videotaped, it is necessary to reserve the equipment
well in advance of the sessions. Equipment which is needed includes:
o A video recorder.
o A microphone which should be placed at the discussion table.
o A videotape per session (Note: One videotape will hold approximately two hours of
time).
It is recommended to videotape the sessions. If notes are taken by the research team during the
session, this will also facilitate the development of a report for the focus group.
consent forms and payment to participants. Name tags will allow the moderator to address questions
to specific individuals during the discussion (Beimborn, 2015).
1. Parking Problem Less space for parking Illegal, Less space for Illegal, Less space for
parking, obstruction parking
in driveways
1 (a). On-street parking Aesthetically pleasant, Aesthetically pleasant, quality wise average and
quality wise average and capacity insufficient
capacity wise sufficient
1 (b). Off-street parking Aesthetically pleasant, Aesthetically unpleasant, capacity wise in
capacity wise sufficient and sufficient and quality of on-street parking is good
quality of on-street parking
is good.
Centralized Parking
2 (a). Applicability Not applicable Applicable because it is financially feasible,
partially conforms with the policy, increase the
livability & safety.
Parking Freezes
4 (a). Applicability Yes, but it is not Yes, because it is No, limited connection
financially feasible financially feasible, with public transport
neither it conforms with conforms with
policy but it can increase policy and can
livability and safety of increase livability
the area. and safety of the
area.
4 (b). Acceptability 20-40% >20% 20-40%
4 (c). Strength/Weakness Aesthetically better less car More space It can be fully integrated
on streets. No space for visitors to make people
Politically not feasible, enthusiastic.
intervention of police Difficult to integrate
politically sensitive
4 (d). Benefits/Consequences Aesthetically better Comfortable Increased liability, less
Intervention of police heft & No alternatives for pollution ecofriendly
vandalism visitor parking Less attractive,
Demand Reduction
5 (a). Applicability Yes, because it is financially No
feasible and can increase
livability and safety of the
area to a great extent but it
does not conform with the
policy.
Road Distan Number of Type of Type of On-street Off- Parking Other Free
type ce housing Housing Parking Parking street issue land space
from units type + Parkin uses availabl
Centre capacity g e
(m) type+
capacit
y
Row
houses
Row
houses
Row
houses
Annex IV: Observation form, Maps, Focus group Questionnaire & Presentation
Name of Street
___________________________________________________________________
Character of street
Residential Commercial Mix use
Type of Parking
On-street Off-street
If on-street then
Parallel Back to back Angled
Number of spaces available ____________________
If off-street then
Garage Parking Lot
Number of spaces available ____________________
Parking issue
Illegal parking Obstruction in driveways Fight among residents Vandalism
Less number of parking spaces available
Other land use in street
Shop Restaurant Office Education Sport Other
Author: Annum Khaliq 63
Number of free spaces available that can be used for parking in the street___________________
On- • Vandalism
street • Aesthetically unpleasant
parking • Obstruction in driveways hindrance in the
flow of emergency vehicles
• Illegal parking
• Decreases roadway capacity
• Impedes traffic flow and increases crash
potential
• Affects livability
Off- • Under Utilized
street • Residents Not Willing To Pay
parking • More Space Requirement
• Less Personal Safety
• Dead Zones
• Limits Pedestrian Access
• Car Storage Seems Ugly and Undesirable
Streetscape Feature
• Encourages Car Use
Author: Annum Khaliq 64
Q1. What problems are experienced by the residents in Runkst regarding parking?
Illegal parking
Obstruction in driveways
Less number of parking spaces available
Vandalism
Any other, please specify ________________________________________________________
Q1. (a). On-Street Parking
A. Quality Good Average Poor
B. Capacity Sufficient Insufficient
C. Aesthetically Pleasant Unpleasant
(SECTION II)
A. Centralized Parking are parking facilities, located in the center of the neighborhood designated to
be used by the residents of the community rather than parking on street. Centralized parking, as an
alternative to on-site parking, also improves urban design and preserves the historic nature of
communities. In large neighborhoods shuttle services are used to and from the centralized parking
facilities to facilitate the users.
Q.2. (b). How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q2. (c).What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Q2. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits___________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Consequences______________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
D. Shared Parking means same parking space to be used by different types of land uses depending
on the peak hour’s e.g. same space to be used by an office from 9-5pm and later in the evening to
Author: Annum Khaliq 66
be used by residents. By encouraging shared parking, planners can decrease the total number of
spaces required for mixed-use developments or single use developments in mixed-use areas.
Q3. (b).How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q3. (c).What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q3. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
E. Parking Freezes after certain time limit some areas in the neighborhood are not allowed to be
used for the purpose of parking specially the residential streets (e.g. parking is not allowed in the
residential streets close to city center after 5pm). Parking freezes need to be implemented in
conjunction with viable public transportation options. The amount of parking required can be
Author: Annum Khaliq 67
directly reduced through parking freezes that cap the total number of parking spaces in a
particular district.
Q4. Do you think that the concept of ‘parking freezes’ is applicable in Runkst?
Yes No, Why ____________________________________________________________
Q4. (a). If yes then do you think it is?
Q4. (b). How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q4. (c). What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Q4. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
F. Demand reduction directly targets on the reduction of parking demand by replacing parking
spaces with bus stops or reserving parking spaces for carpooling, car sharing, etc. Demand
reduction can also be achieved by increasing the price of parking or by introducing non-auto
transport incentives.
Author: Annum Khaliq 68
Q5. Do you think that the concept of ‘demand reduction’ is applicable in Runkst?
Yes No, Why_____________________________________________________________
Q5. (a). If yes then do you think it is/will?
Q5. (b). How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept.
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q5. (c). What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q5. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
G. Smart Parking a system that informs and navigates the driver about the free space available in
the nearby parking area using smart sensors and smartphone apps, the resident may get a
notification on his smartphone about a free space that is at some distance from his home (more
explained by the picture below).
Q6. Do you think that smart parking is applicable in Runkst?
Yes No, Why _________________________________________________________
Author: Annum Khaliq 69
Q6. (b). How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q6. (c). What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q6. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
F. Automated Parking a type of fully controlled robotic car storage uses various mechanical
operations to take the car to the vacant space inside it, easy retrieval and requires less space as
compared to conventional garages (might be expensive for both residents and municipality).
Q7. Do you think that automated parking is applicable in Runkst?
Yes No, Why_____________________________________________________________
Q7. (a).If yes then do you think it is?
Q7. (b).How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept.
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q7. (c). What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q7. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
G. Private car parks owners list their parking spaces online via some website. Car owners easily
find, book and pay for parking after reserving on the website, or directly claiming the spot
through the smartphone app (e.g. Carambla is an "eBay for city parking" where owners list there
parking space for earning a financial return on excess capacity, benefit from increased security
and embrace smart city mobility for social responsibility reasons. This is already working in
Antwerp, Brussels & Ghent).
Q8. Do you think that Private car parks is applicable in Runkst?
Yes No, Why_____________________________________________________________
Q8. (a).If yes then do you think it is?
Q8. (b). How much do you think the residents be willing to accept this concept
100-80 % 80-60% 60-40% 40-20% less than 20%
Q8. (c). What Strengths/weakness do you think the concept has?
Strenghts_______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_____________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q8. (d).What benefits/ consequences this concept can bring if introduced in the current situation (in
your opinion)?
Benefits________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Consequences___________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Q9. Rank the above mentioned concepts on a scale of 1-5. Give the highest score (i.e. 1) to the
concept which best fits in Runkst and other accordingly.
A. Centralized Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
B. Shared Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C. Parking Freezes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
D. Demand Reduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E. Smart Parking
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Author: Annum Khaliq 72
F. Automated Parking 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q10. Why do you think this is the best option to be used in Runkst? Reason.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
(Thank you)
Author: Annum Khaliq 73
Figure 9: Division of Hasselt for parking study by municipality (Source: Municipality Hasselt)
Author: Annum Khaliq 74
Author: Annum Khaliq 75
Author: Annum Khaliq 76
Niet tegenstaand deze toekenning van het auteursrecht aan de Universiteit Hasselt
behoud ik als auteur het recht om de eindverhandeling, - in zijn geheel of gedeeltelijk -,
vrij te reproduceren, (her)publiceren of distribueren zonder de toelating te moeten
verkrijgen van de Universiteit Hasselt.
Ik bevestig dat de eindverhandeling mijn origineel werk is, en dat ik het recht heb om de
rechten te verlenen die in deze overeenkomst worden beschreven. Ik verklaar tevens dat
de eindverhandeling, naar mijn weten, het auteursrecht van anderen niet overtreedt.
Ik verklaar tevens dat ik voor het materiaal in de eindverhandeling dat beschermd wordt
door het auteursrecht, de nodige toelatingen heb verkregen zodat ik deze ook aan de
Universiteit Hasselt kan overdragen en dat dit duidelijk in de tekst en inhoud van de
eindverhandeling werd genotificeerd.
Universiteit Hasselt zal mij als auteur(s) van de eindverhandeling identificeren en zal geen
wijzigingen aanbrengen aan de eindverhandeling, uitgezonderd deze toegelaten door deze
overeenkomst.
Voor akkoord,
Khaliq, Annum
Datum: 8/06/2015